Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday August 03 2015, @06:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the blunt-assessment dept.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is struggling to hire computer scientists, according to a Department of Justice audit of the feeb's attempts to implement its Next Generation Cyber Initiative.

A 34-page audit report (PDF) from the DoJ notes that, while making considerable progress, the FBI has "encountered challenges in attracting external participants to its established Cyber Task Forces".

[The audit] bemoaned how hiring and retaining qualified white hats remained a challenge for the FBI, especially when competing private-sector entities pay more and have less invasive recruitment processes. The FBI reportedly did not hire 52 of the 134 computer scientists for which it was authorised, meaning 38 per cent of the workforce it requires (as per budget) is simply not there. This additionally means that five of the FBI's 56 field offices do not have even a single computer scientist assigned to their Cyber Task Force.

Back in 2011, the Office of the Inspector General gave the FBI a thorough scolding over its inability to address America's cyber-intrusion threat, for which it has become the responsible national body. The Next Generation Cyber Initiative was launched in response, essentially as a platform for funding increases in the face of a swelling number of data breaches and cyber-attacks in recent years.

This is not the first mention of the FBI's difficulties in recruiting infosec professionals. Last year, the [FBI]'s director James Comey said the company was re-examining its drugs policy as too many applicants seemed to be enjoying a doobie en route to interview.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:01AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:01AM (#217698)

    Posting anon, for obvious reasons.

    I recently applied for a job. I've been jobless for a while, since my last layoff. I was all set to interview with this company onsite. I started to fill out the online app and it says 'we are a drug-free workplace' and that means, piss test before employment.

    This is in the bay area. For a pure software job. More and more, I'm seeing this. Not every company, but more than you'd think!

    It sucks. This is not the deep south, where I'd expect this kind of crap.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:11AM (#217728)

    random drug and alcohol tests are becoming commonplace in australia at all places of employment. even onsite contractors are required to undergo them if asked to.

    it's not because they give a shit about what you do outside work; they just want to make damn sure you don't bring the shit into work or have it affect your performance or safety, or safety of others around you.

    if someone is drunk or drugged, it may not only affect their job performance and attention to safety, but also their ability to decide if they shouldn't go to work because of it.

    another example that causes impaired judgement is fatigue. most people who are really tired will probably deny it till it actually causes them to fuck up. others around them can probably tell though.

    random drug and alcohol tests will only become more prolific so you may as well get used to it or you'll never find a job.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:15AM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:15AM (#217775)

      it's not because they give a shit about what you do outside work; they just want to make damn sure you don't bring the shit into work or have it affect your performance or safety, or safety of others around you.

      Complete nonsense. If someone is doing a bad job, fire *them*. I don't see them forbidding people from drinking alcohol (more dangerous than weed by any serious measure) 100% simply because it's a possibility that someone may come to work drunk and do a bad job. If someone went to work drunk and did a terrible job, maybe the employers would fire them rather than refuse to hire anyone who drinks alcohol. Amazing concept.

      That is the most intelligent policy, but it's not like these employers tend to be intelligent.

      random drug and alcohol tests will only become more prolific so you may as well get used to it or you'll never find a job.

      Have fun paying for all the unemployed people you create with your idiocy with your tax dollars, you corporate stooge. If someone can't find a job because they do drugs (regardless of whether or not they abuse them), then drugs are de facto banned, irrespective of any government policy. Employers hold all the cards, and that has to change.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:03AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:03AM (#217828)

        If someone is doing a bad job, fire *them*.

        apparently you have never actually hired anyone before

        Employers hold all the cards, and that has to change.

        actually, they hold all the dollars that people want. otherwise unemployed people wouldn't bother even looking for a job. without employers, you don't have a thriving economy

        the retarded keynesian theory that spenders drive an economy is false. you will never find any concrete examples in history where keynesianism actually worked, though i'm sure there will be plenty where you think it did, but you're just brainwashed anyway so that's expected). people have always and will continue to buy whatever garbage is marketed the best. however, without savings and production, there is nothing to buy. case in point: plenty of demand for new samsung phones, but suppliers can't keep up. demand has never been a problem, anywhere in the world, because if people have a job and bring home some dosh, they will always either (a) spend it or (b) save it. unfortunately with interest rates so low savings is taking a dive, which means capital for building businesses is harder to come by (unless you're mates with the federal reserve, in which case you just have some printed).

        if you want some misguided socialist distopia, the USA is actually getting to be a pretty good case study

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:33AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:33AM (#217856)

          Quote a short sentence about recruitment practices. Spend 95% of response in a weird rant about keynesianism. Pet peeve much?

          "Yeah I agree, the bear population is indeed a problem. By the way, where's the birth certificate?"

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:12PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:12PM (#217966)

          apparently you have never actually hired anyone before

          Wrong. I know it's hard for you to imagine not being an authoritarian who uses jobs to control what people do outside of work even if it doesn't affect their performance, but not all employers are that idiotic. I see you ignored most of my comment anyway.

          without employers, you don't have a thriving economy

          Without people willing to accept the jobs, you won't have a thriving economy either.

          if you want some misguided socialist distopia, the USA is actually getting to be a pretty good case study

          The USA is more about corporate welfare and ineffective, weak regulations on corporations than anything else.

          • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:57PM

            by Freeman (732) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:57PM (#218120) Journal

            The idea behind alcohol and drug testing is to make sure that the employee isn't impaired while on the job. I.E. they are trying to prevent things like this from happening: http://www.bbc.com/news/10454311/ [bbc.com] TL/DR "Drunk trader banned for buying 7 million barrels of oil." I came across this story the other day and found it to be interesting what just one person can do when fiddling with the stock market.

            --
            Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 04 2015, @11:11PM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @11:11PM (#218201)

              The idea behind alcohol and drug testing is to make sure that the employee isn't impaired while on the job.

              That isn't what's happening. What they're doing is firing anyone who has remote traces of drugs in their system, or not hiring them at all. Interestingly enough, they don't instantly fire people when they learn that they drink alcohol off the job. If they did, chances are, the employer would have to fire themselves. It's just with bogeyman drugs, and it happens whether or not they abuse drugs or come in high. Frankly, drug testing like this shouldn't even be legal, and they should just fire people who do a bad job.

              "Drunk trader banned for buying 7 million barrels of oil." I came across this story the other day and found it to be interesting what just one person can do when fiddling with the stock market.

              Yeah, that's one example, and it's with alcohol. Not something that happens often, and when it does happen, it's usually not that severe. No idea why they gave a single person so much power, either.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:12AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:12AM (#217854)

    Take it as an indicator; it will not be the only obviously irrational cargo cult corp management decision you will encounter there. I guess if you just want to "just work there", it's fine, but I don't see that kind of firm being competent and I don't anymore want to work for a dysfunctional company.

    Heck, I'd be much more concerned about the quantity of idiots and abusive sociopaths in workforce than the number of recreational drug users and this policy generates a net increase of people belonging to either of the former two groups.

    (reasoning and its premises: if you get to choose where to work for, being dishonest in interview is idiotic unless you are a sociopath. abstaining solely to produce a clean sample is dishonest. the pool of people who are in such position is not unimportant. the negative effect of this "only liars in" filtering far outweighs any intended correlation-based positive effect)